Lithium

Not on hand, sorry - but I have seen results (1/4 mile and dyno) which have been enough to make me treat the 6062 as though it should be treated a larger turbo, both in spool and power capacity than you'd expect from the wheel sizes. 650-750whp on a US dyno is about the area I was thinking, which is pretty decent from a 60mm turbo - normally more what you expect from a good 62mm.

It's not all in...

Same with both of us - had no idea where to go or anything, but was fun to go out for a bit of a lurk about

Black 4 door, we gave you a wave when you were in a line of traffic waiting to head around the bays from Kilbirnie area - unless it wasn't you but either way the driver looked perplexed haha

99% sure you just drove past us parked outside Armstrong in town, we are in @Looney_Head RB30 GTSt

There have been some pretty big numbers from them to be fair, definitely more than a G30-770 will support but while I haven't seen results from a G30-770, it seems pretty reasonable to expect it to spool better too. The G30-770 is a more sensible match to this power range I think

This is true. Drifting off topic but more people are already showing up and designing cast manifolds, I have been pondering whether to invest some time with a design I've been playing with elsewhere which would probably earn scowls but have a lot of advantages with little disadvantage. No point having the tech we have now without using it.

lol. My concern is more that I've heard bugger all people using the divided v-band housings, but when I have heard of it - it seems people are having issues making manifolds sturdy enough to have a nice collector to suit the flange and not end up cracking or anything else less than ideal.

I'm ok with this when collecting <4 cylinders, but otherwise twin scroll + v-band don't work for me, and throwing away pulse conversion also doesn't work for me, so your idea has flaws

Yeah, knowing Garrett they won't do the G30 in T4 split pulse - they haven't seemed too popular. Would be nice if there were more standard V-band options, tbh I haven't looked too far into it but I'm not sure how far the v-band option for the G30 range will stretch. Be nice if you could go all the way to a G35-1050 or something else with the same flange.

Do you have any preferences in terms of flange? As per Gtsboy, surprised you didn't mention the EFR range and did Precision - Precision are not really big players at this kind of power range and Borg Warner are arguably king, the G series looking like at best they are only just catching up to the EFR range. I haven't found a single result for G30s, yet- not for lack of keeping an eye out. I would love to see a G30 770 on a set up like this so just do it I suspect that it has a chance to be a banger of s thing for that power target, not just saying that because I want to see someone do it. If you are feeling adventurous the Xona Rotor XR7164S with the trick UHF turbine looks mega interesting but could be raising the hand for being a guinea pig. There are at least local dealers for Xona now and the results for the UHF range that I've seen so far have been pretty nuts so an intriguing option.

The finger over the lens at the end definitely a master stroke!

Hahahaaha I saw the other comments and expected that the other guys were just ripping on you for nothing, but holy crap that is actually impressively bad, good to see it driving but that video is so bad I'm impressed!

Not sure where any of this came from, but for what it's worth - I am pretty sure that the T25 G25 turbos will no be bolt on for the RB26, and there is no T25 option at all for the G30 660... currently only available in v-band. I suspect it would be folly to try making a G-series bolton upgrade to an RB26, really anything over 40lb/min turbos on stock manifolds on an RB26 is making life difficult no matter what wheels you use.. I suspect.

That's a tricky one, though. For the compressor to push air it needs force at the turbine to accelerate the turbine&compressor and move the air (which has a mass) - let alone to compress it. That force comes from drive pressure, which is essentially the raw EMAP value you are reading. If you do headwork to require the amount of boost pressure required to move x-amount of air it will reduce the amount of work the turbine needs to do to a degree, meaning a bit less drive pressure required - but the trick there is you have reduced numbers from both sides of the ratio.... so your EMAP reduces, but so does your IMAP and you COULD even find yourself making less power as a result of the reduced boost you have to run to keep the ratio at or below 1:1. It's a bit hard to say which will reduce more, but if I were a betting man I'd be backing the cost vs reward benefit as not being anywhere near as rewarding as just using the turbine speed as the primary warning for overwork, and maybe relaxing your EMAP/IMAP ratio cut off back to even about 130% (which is still quite conservative imho) you will get much better gains than the headwork for no cost or compromise. Just my opinion, but it's become a conversation so I'm throwing it in there. If you were happy with the current power level then thats all good, but if you are looking at spending a bunch more money to try and get more performance when the data suggests the performance is available comfortably with the current package - I'm not sure why you'd not use the obvious approach. As @GTSBoy said - 1:1 is crazy conservative for most cases, and is more of what you'd see in they higher levels of drag racing where you have something you are looking to make MAX power so reducing forces and restriction is the priority, response is absolutely not.

Exhaust manifold pressure. When talking about turbocharged spark injected cars 1:1 boost versus exhaust pressure at full power was pretty much the realms of drag car setups not a really long time ago, I have had conversations with people who actually have doubted it is possible to have equal exhaust pressure to intake pressure so managing to have a reasonable amount of response while not having boost pressure go past intake pressure is quite a big deal - albeit still meaning it is leaving a heap on the table. An EFR8374 making this much power with a 1.05 would have a scary amount higher exhaust pressure than boost pressure - if it was possible to even do it

100% agreed, 1:1 suggests it's FAR from restrictive. It's very very impressive, but it also looks like it's probably reasonable to believe because.... If you read @R32 TT's comment and he reads yours - the picture starts getting drawn. If you've ever looked at how emap tends to behave, it seems very much like he has let boost climb until EMAP is starting to catch IMAP and then dropping boost to stop EMAP from running away as the rpm increases. Reading between the lines the whole thing has been done very risk adverse/being very gentle on it - if you can call peaking at 37psi and making 500kw "gentle" on an RB26 haha. But you know what I mean. It seems from all that has been said that the EFR8474 is doing this really quite easily, which is pretty impressive considering this would be a very fast fun road car.

It'll be interesting to see The boost and rpm that it's at when it's doing 115krpm would be good info, especially EMAP. I'm not sure what you've looked at or considered so far, but 115krpm only gets "on the map" at around 26psiG - and at that point would already be representing just over 90lb/min of flow which SHOULD be comfortably over 500kw @ wheels on E85. At that point the extra 12,000rpm turbine speed only represents about 3-4% more compressor flow. You mentioned 36psi, at that point it should be flowing around 84lb/min at 115krpm - so definitely more modest airflow, I would have expected more power than that still but not sure how the dyno you are using reads etc. Fwiw there should be 12-13% more airflow between 115krpm and 127krpm max speed, so if everything else is working properly and its just how the dyno reads then that still suggests there is the airflow available for 560-570wkw at max compressor speed which is hearty.

Not a bad result if there are issues - interested in any data you have to share? Might be quite hard to tell if the head/cams are an issue if you have a boost leak, that has potential to mess with the data (and performance) somewhat

For what it's worth, if you use a G4+ Link ECU with fuel pressure input and use the modelled fuel mode ("VE mode" as people usually call it) it will automatically factor in spikes or dips in fuel pressure to the fuel calcs and evens things out, but yeah PWM control is win.

I do mean real life I live in Wellington, what I meant is if I see it again I'll know that the car is actually a bit of a weapon... I am pretty sure I've seen it and wondered in the past

Nice! I am trying for the life of me to remember where I've seen this car, but I am certain I've seen it around. Next time I see it I'll link it to this thread haha

Haha yeah, a mate has a 2015 8V with a Revo Stage 2 kit on it and it is more than peppy. Tbh I'd be happy with something like that, even a closer to stock version than that just to try and keep the lights on the dash to a minimum

I am very jealous. Can't justify RS3 money but if I could, I would. And yeah, not for a race car - but an S3 would make for a nice everyday car.

I'm scared of Euros, but love them too. I am trying not to get too tempted to get an S3 as my next car for these kinds of reasons.